Re: is x10.com dead?

[AZ Nomad <aznomad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:10:06 -0500, Robert Green <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


>"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:2ridnaseAcm94mnenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > If I were to switch today, I'd be giving up a ton of tangible benefits
>for
>> a
>> > marginal increase in reliability.  No way.
>>
>> That's just it, the reliability difference wasn't marginal.  It was 50%
>(at
>> best) versus 100%.

>I don't think that anyone here who runs X-10 successfully tolerates a 50/50
>chance of each command working or not.  If that's *really* the kind of
>reliability you were getting, you probably own some piece of equipment
>you've been taking around from site to site that's stepping on your X-10
>signal.

I wouldn't tolerate an error rate of even 5%.